Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180528152243.GD1293@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1527253951-22709-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1527253951-22709-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20180528101234.GA1293@localhost.localdomain> <CAKfTPtDCkzPMt6XrXRcURXm=53LABiwbFd3JMQkJDWpTprycRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180528152243.GD1293@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 18:34:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAY26HZ00R02RuW2kvZLvZxHGvh-kbfrqv-hPumdknvWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <alessio.balsini@santannapisa.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 28 May 2018 at 17:22, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 28/05/18 16:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Juri,
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 12:12, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> > On 25/05/18 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> Now that we have both the dl class bandwidth requirement and the dl class
>> >> utilization, we can use the max of the 2 values when agregating the
>> >> utilization of the CPU.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>  kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 +++++-
>> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> >> index 4526ba6..0eb07a8 100644
>> >> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> >> @@ -2194,7 +2194,11 @@ static inline void cpufreq_update_util(struct rq *rq, unsigned int flags) {}
>> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL
>> >>  static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq)
>> >>  {
>> >> -     return (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT;
>> >> +     unsigned long util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT;
>> >
>> > I'd be tempted to say the we actually want to cap to this one above
>> > instead of using the max (as you are proposing below) or the
>> > (theoretical) power reduction benefits of using DEADLINE for certain
>> > tasks might vanish.
>>
>> The problem that I'm facing is that the sched_entity bandwidth is
>> removed after the 0-lag time and the rq->dl.running_bw goes back to
>> zero but if the DL task has preempted a CFS task, the utilization of
>> the CFS task will be lower than reality and schedutil will set a lower
>> OPP whereas the CPU is always running. The example with a RT task
>> described in the cover letter can be run with a DL task and will give
>> similar results.
>> avg_dl.util_avg tracks the utilization of the rq seen by the scheduler
>> whereas rq->dl.running_bw gives the minimum to match DL requirement.
>
> Mmm, I see. Note that I'm only being cautious, what you propose might
> work OK, but it seems to me that we might lose some of the benefits of
> running tasks with DEADLINE if we start selecting frequency as you
> propose even when such tasks are running.

I see your point. Taking into account the number cfs running task to
choose between rq->dl.running_bw and avg_dl.util_avg could help

>
> An idea might be to copy running_bw util into dl.util_avg when a DL task
> goes to sleep, and then decay the latter as for RT contribution. What
> you think?

Not sure that this will work because you will overwrite the value each
time a DL task goes to sleep and the decay will mainly happen on the
update when last DL task goes to sleep which might not reflect what
has been used by DL tasks but only the requirement of the last running
DL task. This other interest of the PELT is to have an utilization
tracking which uses the same curve as CFS so the increase of
cfs_rq->avg.util_avg and the decrease of avg_dl.util_avg will
compensate themselves (or the opposite)